Kerala

StateCommission

A/429/2024

CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SABU JOSEPH - Opp.Party(s)

SREEVARAHAM G SATHEESH

04 Oct 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 
First Appeal No. A/429/2024
( Date of Filing : 15 Jul 2024 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 06/11/2023 in Case No. CC/72/2020 of District Idukki)
 
1. CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
SAMKRANTHI JUNCTION KOTTAYAM
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SABU JOSEPH
ANCHANICKAL HOUSE ADIMALY P O MUTHARAMKUNNU MANNAMKANDAM IDUKKI 685561
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D JUDICIAL MEMBER
  SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 04 Oct 2024
Final Order / Judgement

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

I.A. No. 899/2024 in APPEAL No. 429/2024

ORDER DATED: 04.10.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 72/2020 of DCDRC, Idukki)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                                     : MEMBER

PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

 

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kottayam Branch Office, Samkranthi Junction, M.C. Road, Kottayam represented by its Territory in charge, Legal Claims, Ernakulam.

 

(By Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)

 

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

 

  1. Sabu Joseph, S/o Joseph, Anchanickal House, Adimaly P.O., Mutharam Kunnu, Mannamkandam, Idukki-685 561.

(By Advs. P.S. Rajesh & Sajith J.S.)

  1. Cholamandalam Distribution Services Ltd., Near Federal Bank Ltd., Adimali P.O.

 

  1. Cholamandalam Finance Co. Ltd., Adimaly, Near Federal Bank Ltd., Adimaly P.O.

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

This is an application seeking for condoning the delay of 83 days in filing the appeal.

2.  It is contended by the petitioner that the order under appeal was received by the petitioner on 23.03.2024 and hence the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 22.04.2024.  However, the order along with the entire file was forwarded to the higher office for further action.  Due to misplacement of the file, the delay was caused in returning the file to the office concerned for further action.  The delay was, in fact, caused due to the misplacement of the file.

3.  Objection was filed by the 1st respondent contending that the reasons stated in the affidavit are not sufficient to condone the delay.

4.  Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Perused the affidavit and the objection.

5.  The learned advocates on both sides have advanced argument supporting their respective contentions.

6.  The object of the law of limitation is to put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. We may now go through the authorities on the point before proceeding further.  

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011 KHC 5263:2011 (14) SCC 578) held in paragraph 5 as hereinbelow:-

           “5. It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer fora”.

           8.  The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. v. Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 KHC 6197: 2024 INSC 286: 2024 Live Law (SC) 288, after considering various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, held that the law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself. It was further held in the above decision that a right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. (Supra) that the courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause is explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence. The Apex Court also held that the merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay.  

9.  The National Commission in Liberty Videocon General Insurance Vs. MS. Rathod in First Appeal No. 1189 of 2023 held that where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence, the delay condonation petition cannot be permitted.  In the said case, the National Commission dismissed the application seeking for condoning the delay of 102 days in filing the appeal.  The National Commission in Parsvnath Developers Limited Vs. Abhinav Sharma and another, in Appeal Execution No. 8 of 2024 held that when the appeal is filed beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain as to what sufficient cause which prevented him from approaching the court within the period of limitation.  The National Commission further observed that adequate and enough reason must be there for condoning the delay.  In the said case, the National Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the appeal.  In Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the State Commission dismissed the application, for condonation of delay of 142 days, filed on the ground that the records were misplaced by the junior advocate of the counsel concerned. The National Commission did not interfere with the said order.

10.  In the light of the above legal position, we have to test whether the delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned or not in this case.

11.  It is contended that the file was misplaced and hence there was a delay of 83 days in filing the appeal.  It is not stated as to when the file was forwarded to the higher office and when the missing of the file was noticed by the petitioner.  The misplacing of the file is not a sufficient reason justifying the delay of 83 days in filing the appeal.  Having gone through the contentions of the petitioner, we are not satisfied that there is sufficient cause to condone the delay of 83 days in filing the appeal. That apart, there was negligence and want of due diligence on the part of the petitioner in this case. In the said circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 

In the result, this application stands dismissed. 

 

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

 

                                                                  AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 429/2024

JUDGMENT DATED: 04.10.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 72/2020 of DCDRC, Idukki)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                                     : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

 

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kottayam Branch Office, Samkranthi Junction, M.C. Road, Kottayam represented by its Territory in charge, Legal Claims, Ernakulam.

 

(By Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)

 

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

 

  1. Sabu Joseph, S/o Joseph, Anchanickal House, Adimaly P.O., Mutharam Kunnu, Mannamkandam, Idukki-685 561.

(By Advs. P.S. Rajesh & Sajith J.S.)

  1. Cholamandalam Distribution Services Ltd., Near Federal Bank Ltd., Adimali P.O.

 

  1. Cholamandalam Finance Co. Ltd., Adimaly, Near Federal Bank Ltd., Adimaly P.O.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

In view of the dismissal of I.A. No. 899/2024, this appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation.

The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be refunded to the 1st respondent, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement. 

 

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                  AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

 

jb

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D]
JUDICIAL MEMBER
 
 
[ SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.